Author: Badalian Vardan

STATUS QUO IN THE CAUCASUS FAVORS ARMENIA ONLY
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir.am
19 May 06

The status quo in the South Caucasus is favorable only for Armenia
among the three states of the region, stated Russian Member of
Parliament Constantine Zatulin, expert on external relations, on May
17. The Russian member of parliament mentioned that the problems of
Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Osetia do not allow Georgia and Azerbaijan
to approve the status quo.

In the meantime, Zatulin thinks that the status quo is better than the
most ambitious plans of changing it. His next statement emanates from
this opinion or vice versa. Zatulin says unlike the United States,
Russia is the power which is highly interested in keeping the status
quo in the South Caucasus.

Zatulin, of course, does not specify with facts or reasons why
the United States should not be interested. The Russian member
of parliament emphasized the possibility of actions against Iran,
which would be disastrous for the South Caucasus. However, it should
be noted that the United States has asserted for a number of times
directly or indirectly that they will not use the South Caucasian
states for actions against Iran. The evidence to this is the loyalty
of the United States towards the Iran-Armenia cooperation, as well as
all the energy projects that include the region and enjoy the support
of the United States. In addition, during Aliev’s visit Bush announced
that it is not going to launch a campaign against Iran, which means
that the United States is not likely to turn the Caucasus a military
polygon. In the meantime, there are a number of facts which contradict
to Zatulin’s words, regarding the interests of Russia, and the next
statement he made in Yerevan is enough to doubt Zatulin’s frankness
concerning the status quo.

The Russian member of parliament says Armenia is the only country in
this region where there is no threat of dissolution of the state.

Zatulin says Georgia and Azerbaijan have scores of problems with ethnic
minorities, which are still sleeping but can wake up. What is this
if not a threat addressed to these countries, considering that Russia
has too many buttons to push alarm. For us, it is especially evident
in the case of the Armenians of Javakkheti, when Russia withdraws
its military installations, allegedly reluctantly, and the Armenians
protest against the pull-out. Seemingly it favors Russia, and is an
excellent card for the trade on the pull-out of the military bases. But
the Russian Federation is likely to take up a different strategy and
demands that the Georgian government guarantee the security of the
pull-out of the Russian military equipment from Javakheti. In other
words, facts come to confirm Russia’s likelihood to instigate new
conflicts in the South Caucasus rather than to maintain the status quo.

Yet another statement by Zatulin on the maintenance of the status quo
contains a suspicious dose of frankness. Zatulin argues that Armenia
is the only country in the region, which is totally interested in
the status quo in the region. Zatulin’s statements seem to favor
Armenia. This is quite ambiguous, however. First, it is essential to
find out the degree of change of the status quo required for regional
integration. The settlement of conflicts implies, nevertheless, certain
inevitable changes. And under these circumstances it appears rather
vague how beneficial the role of a “devotee of the status quo” is for
Armenia, if it can clash with outlooks for regional integration. In
fact, Zatulin appears to be placing responsibility for the status
quo, probably also the failure of outlooks for regional development
on Armenia. And his assertion that Russia is the most loyal defender
of the status quo among the outside forces is but political blackmail
against Armenia. Hence, in the beginning Zatulin places responsibility
on Armenia, definitely blames Armenia, and then immediately declares
Russia the defender of the stance of Armenia, which is guided by the
principle “you have not other way?”

ANDRE IN THE FINALS

A1+
[12:01 pm] 19 May, 2006

Singer Andre who represents Armenia in the annual music competition
“Eurovision-2006” reached the finals. According to the regulations
of the competition, the finalists are elected by the TV viewers of
the participant countries with the exception of the home country of
the singer.

After the semi finals by the voting of the TV viewers Andre reached
the finals which means that on May 20 he will represent Armenia once
again in Athens.

EXPERT: BAKU HAS UNOFFICIALLY AGREED TO TAKE PART IN ANTI-IRANIAN COALITION

Regnum, Russia
May 18 2006

The USA is main initiator of various ways of Nagorno Karabakh conflict
settlement, as well as most active mediator of the negotiation
process, Azerbaijani analyst Arif Yunusov is quoted as saying by a
REGNUM correspondent at The Caucasus in Russian Policy: History and
the Present International Conference organized by Caucasus Research
Center at Russian Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State University of
International Relations (MGIMO).

According to him, Russian co-Chair of OSCE Minsk Group Yuri Merzlyakov,
who, according Yunusov, “sabotaged the talks,” did not practically
support activity of the American side. At the same time, Yunusov stated
that American diplomacy did not succeed in achieving any results to
settle the Karabakh conflict, and, according to Yunusov, American
co-Chair Steven Mann is to be dismissed, receiving a new appointment.

Also, the Baku analyst mentioned processes, which develop around
Iran, as well as Azerbaijan’s attitudes towards to them. According to
him, official Baku has unofficially agreed with Washington to take
part in anti-Iranian coalition, offering their airdromes and other
communications to satisfy US army’s requirements. Also, according to
him, main part of Azerbaijani public opinion is categorically again
such decision, because it realizes risks, which will become real,
if Iran is attacked. “Iranian authorities directly stated that if
the Azerbaijani side supports Americans, they will attack on 24 most
important objects in Azerbaijan, including BTC oil pipeline, which
will cause ecological disaster, and even, maybe – on Baku residential
areas,” the analyst stressed. Also, he informed that despite that,
seven airdromes have unofficially been handed over to Americans,
and appropriate conditions and infrastructure are prepared to settle
US servicemen in the south of Azerbaijan. The analyst pointed out
that there is danger of refugees’ afflux from Iran in the light
of possible attack against the country. Already now, according
to Yunusov’s information, confirmed, in his words, by the Iranian
ambassador in Baku, up to 50,000 Iranian citizens have settled in
the Azerbaijani territory.

MICROSOFT OPENS OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE IN ARMENIA
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 17 2006

YEREVAN, May 17. /ARKA/. Official representative office of Microsoft
Corporation was opened in Armenia on May 16. Director of the Armenian
representative office of the company Grigor Barseghyan said coming
plans of Microsoft in Armenia envisage enlargement of the circle of
its partners, instruction in high technologies and cooperation with
the RA Government.

According to the Vice-President of Microsoft in the region of Central
and Eastern Europe Vahe Torosyan, opening of the corporation’s office
in Armenia is of great importance for the country, especially in the
light of recent success in the sphere of economy of the republic and
particularly in the IT sphere.

The Chairman of the Union of IT Enterprises Hovhannes Avoyan said
opening of Microsoft’s representation in Armenia will enable Armenia
to take its deserving place and use elaborations of the corporation
in the proper way.

Microsoft Corporation was founded in 1975. At present it is the
world leader in the sphere of software development and servers,
service rendering and elaboration of Internet-technology.

Its production is being sold in more than 80 countries of the world and
was translated into more than 45 languages. Microsoft’s representative
offices exist in CIS countries as well, including Ukraine, Kazakhstan,
and Azerbaijan.

ARTHUR BAGHDASARIAN HASN’T SAID THE WHOLE TRUTH
Anna Israelian

Aravot.am
16 May 06

The RPA and ARF politicians think in this way about those
discrepancies, which the OEP leader produced as the reasons for
leaving the coalition.

The NA chairman Arthur Baghdasarian mentioned in the interview given
on 12 of May that the OEP had discrepancies round inter political or
social-economic problems, democratic reforms and foreign policy with
its coalition partners.

Whether those discrepancies deepened in that period that it wasn’t
possible to work together any more. The RPA member Samvel Nikoyan
answered to this question; “None of the mentioned reasons for
leaving the coalition are news. For example there was a year when the
coalition didn’t affirm the account of the privatization project by
OEP efforts. That is, we have had a worse version.

As regards the approach in the problems of Euro integration I should
remind that one of the superiorities of the foreign policy of a state
is Euro integration. The only difference is that there is no problem
of becoming the NATO member in our agenda.

Other given argumentations of discrepancies aren’t news and can’t be
the reason of leaving the coalition. There were other factors too.”

The PM Andranik Margarian explained the OEP decision in this way to
”Azatutiun” b/s that it was the result of starting the pre-electoral
campaign sooner.

The ARF GB representative Armen Rustamian said on the occasion of the
OEP decision; ”I think it isn’t a complete list. It would be better
for Arthur Baghdasarian to produce those discrepancies completely
after which we’d be able to give remarks.” The ARF Bureau member Vahan
Hovhannisian informed in the interview given to ”Regnum” agency;
‘I haven’t noticed any discrepancies with us. Anyway the conversation
about discrepancies isn’t well grounded. Maybe the OEP is going to
ground but I haven’t heard serious substantiations yet.”

Armen Rustamian also didn’t agree with ”rat race” characteristic;
”I don’t want to offend my partners and I don’t want to use such
terms.” He considers possible that those deputies left the OEP for
ideological reasons; ”It is quite possible as there are a lot of
serious persons there. I don’t think their behavior can be described
by that primitive remarks.

Let’s cite again Vahan Hovhannisian who has mentioned that the
political power must count its possibilities rightly; ”As if you
involve persons into your party for having majority in the parliament
who don’t belong to you ideologically you must face to such a situation
sooner or later.” And the OEP fraction leader Samvel Baghdasarian
whom Arthur Baghdasarian will replace said; ”The reasons are what
were mentioned. And the last problem is the developments on the
account of the project of privatization. There is no other discrepancy.

And other interpretations aren’t true.”

–Boundary_(ID_D/08jkEM6daTvoDKMGovpQ)–

GOVERNMENT OF GEORGIA READY TO BUY HOUSES IN JAVAKHK FOR ITS CITIZENS SUFFERED FROM NATURAL CALAMITIES

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
May 15 2006

AKHALKALAK, MAY 15, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. According to Zaza
Imedashvili, the head of the Emigration, Resettlement and Refugees
Department of the Refugees and Resettlement Ministry of Georgia, this
year the Government of Georgia allocated 1 mln 227 thousand lari (about
700 thousand U.S. dollars) to citizens of Georgia suffered from natural
calamities for buying flats. The Government considers mainly Western
Georgia and Ajaria as regions suffered from natural calamities. As the
“A-Info” agency informs quoting official data, it is envisaged to buy
about 220 houses in the regions of Tsalka, Akhalkalak, Ninotsminda
during the current year. Z.Imedashvili explains resettlement of
Georgians in the regions of Javakhk populated by Armenians with the
issue that houses are cheap there. In the opinion of representatives
of the Armenian Public Organizations Council of Samtskhe-Javakhk,
the main goal of this program of the Georgian Parliament is to change
the demographic picture of Javakhk to the detriment of Armenians.

ERDOGAN REITERATES BOYCOTT THREATS TO FRANCE

Armenpress
May 16 2006

ANKARA, MAY 16, ARMENPRESS: Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
threatened France with trade sanctions if it adopts a bill making it
illegal to deny that the 1915-17 massacre of Armenians in Turkey was
“genocide,” AFP said quoting from a Turkish newspaper.

“Patience has its limits. We do not have hatred (toward France) but
we will impose our sanctions,” the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet quoted
Turkey’s prime minister as saying at a summit of Muslim countries on
the Indonesian island of Bali. French lawmakers are due to consider
next week a bill from the opposition Socialists which would make
anyone denying the existence of the “Armenian genocide” liable to a
five-year jail term and a 45,000-euro ($57,000) fine.

French MPs should be “particularly sensitive” to the issue of possible
sanctions since France is the number one investor in Turkey, Erdogan
said. “There will possibly be problems.”

ORINATS YERKIR PAYS “INTERESTS” FOR GETTING INTO OPPOSITION

Panorama.am
14:40 16/05/06

By the decision of the Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan,
Araik Grigoryan is dismissed from the post of deputy Trade and Economic
Development Minister as of May 15, 2006. According to government
press services, Artsruni Aghajanyan is also dismissed from the post
of deputy Employment and Social Affairs Minister by another decision
of the prime minister.

These decisions stem from the recent internal political developments
connected with the departure of Orinats Yerkir from the ruling
coalition. Both deputy ministers were nominated by Orinats Yerkir
and were approved by the ruling coalition. Because OY has left the
coalition, its ministers, consequently, leave the executive branch. In
fact, they should have done so on their own will.

Until now, only Stepan Barseghyan, today already former Gegharkunik
regional governor, has resigned on his own will among the officials
nominated by OY.

Sergo Yeritsyan, OY deputy chairman and Aram Harutunyan preferred to
leave the party.

Turkey, Armenia and denial

International Herald Tribune
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2006

Turkey’s self-destructive obsession with denying the Armenian genocide seems
to have no limits. This week, the Turks pulled out of a NATO exercise
because the Canadian prime minister used the term “genocide” in reference to
the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during and after World War I.
Before that the Turkish ambassador to France was temporarily recalled to
protest a French bill that would make it illegal to deny the Armenian
genocide occurred. And before that, a leading Turkish novelist, Orhan Pamuk,
was charged with “insulting Turkish identity” for referring to the genocide
(the charges were dropped after an international outcry).

Turkey’s stance is hard to fathom. Each time the Turks lash out, new
questions arise about Turkey’s claims to a place in the European Union, and
the Armenian diaspora becomes even more adamant in demanding a public
reckoning over what happened.

Granted, genocide is a difficult crime for any nation to acknowledge. But to
treat any reference to the issue within Turkey as a crime and to scream
“lie!” every time someone mentions genocide is absurd. By the same token, we
do not see the point of the French law to ban genocide denial. Historical
truths must be established through dispassionate research and debate, not
legislation, even if some of those who question the evidence do so for
insidious motives.

But the Turkish government considers even discussion of the issue to be a
grave national insult and reacts to it with hysteria. Five journalists who
criticized a court’s decision to shut down an Istanbul conference on the
massacre of Armenians were arrested for insulting the courts. Charges
against four were subsequently dropped, but a fifth remains on trial.

The preponderance of serious scholarship outside Turkey accepts that more
than a million Armenians perished between 1914 and 1923 in a state-sponsored
campaign. Turkey’s continued refusal to countenance even a discussion of the
issue stands as a major obstacle to restoring relations with neighboring
Armenia and to claiming Turkey’s rightful place in Europe and the West. It
is time for the Turks to realize that the greater danger to them is denying
history.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 12, 2006 Friday

KARABAKH: WHY DO BREAKTHROUGH AND PEACE REMAIN AN IMPOSSIBILITY FOR
THE TIME BEING?

by Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov, the head of the Russian mission for
truce in Karabakh

VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV, THE HEAD OF THE RUSSIAN MISSION FOR TRUCE IN
KARABAKH: THERE ARE NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO PEACEFUL RESOLUTION
OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT; The very idea of a resolution of the
Karabakh conflict by force must be abandoned for good.

Debates over Nagorno-Karabakh are becoming heated: if a peaceful
resolution of the conflict is possible or the Azerbaijanis and the
Armenians are doomed to another test of bloodshed. The opponents may
be counted on to loose a propagandistic barrage to celebrate the next
anniversary of the cease-fire accord. Established with Russia’s help
on May 12, 1994, the accord is actually the only tangible result of
the peace process turned over to the OSCE. This truce is all twelve
years of the talks have to show for the effort.

A year of relative quiet in the political lives of Azerbaijan and
Armenia, 2006 created the illusions of a breakthrough. The meeting of
Presidents Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan) and Robert Kocharjan (Armenia)
in France on February 10-11 confirms the old axiom that considerable
expectations usually result in disappointment. And yet, search for
the peaceful resolution of the conflict must continue.

Everyone knows that the Azerbaijanis and the Armenians thoroughly
distrust each other and that’s probably the most distinctive feature
of the old conflict. Distrust of the other side and fear of
deception, treachery, or sabotage account for the sides’
uncompromising stand on the matter. It is as if they are doomed to
striving for fulfillment of their own demands first and foremost. The
Armenians want the status of Karabakh determined. The Azerbaijanis
want seven occupied districts liberated and returned to them. As a
result, the clumsy process of talks breeds blind alleys one after
another instead of progressing from one concession to another.

How can this fatal distrust be lessened? It is this distrust that
precludes accords. Not even their signing will guarantee
implementation. Leaderships should be responsive and tolerant, they
should stop this endless fault finding that encourages mutually
shared hostility. Contacts between structures of the two societies
are needed. This is precisely what is missing.

Nothing feeds mutual distrust as effectively and profusely as threats
and hatred. Needless to say, Azerbaijan is the leader of the two
where threats are concerned. Yerevan and Stepanakert barely manage to
keep up with Baku where state officials never miss a chance to
threaten to settle the matter by sheer strength of arms.

The “peace or war” dilemma in the meantime is false because there are
no alternatives to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Not only
because of something as vague as humanism – because of the rigid laws
of logic, because of the correlation of forces in the region that
does not really call for military adventures. The existing
correlation of forces is going to preclude success for a long time to
come, and a protracted war will deadly. Its advocates cannot even
hope for victory. Even success which is highly unlikely will only
shift the conflict to a new generation.

Everyone objects to continuation of the conflict: Russia, United
States, France, European Union, Commonwealth, NATO, and many others.
What pressure will be applied to the aggressor without even
accomplishing anything yet? Fiasco instead of victory!

It did not take Baku long to forget the bitter years of 1992-1994.
Elaborating at length on occupation of their land, the Azerbaijanis
never display the willingness to get to the root of the matter and
think of how their lands came to be occupied. Moreover, this is an
outright taboo. In the meantime, Azerbaijani leaders have spent years
trying to resolve the conflict by force, refusing to honor and even
wrecking cease-fire. I remember my conversation with President Heydar
Aliyev in Baku on July 20, 1993. I remember his scream “We’ll crush
the Armenians!” This refusal to heed common sense resulted in the
loss of seven districts. Baku is saying that it will win them back in
a war all over again now.

All these calls for vengeance are unlikely to work. They are not
going to compel the Armenians to leave the “security zone” around
Karabakh or to win Azerbaijan support in the international community.
The other way round is more likely. It will be, however, a mistake to
believe that all these calls are made for “domestic use” only and
that Azerbaijan does not really have the strength to do what it
pledges to accomplish. Deceiving the people, sawing enmity, and
maiming psyche of new generations, troubadours of the war only
aggravate distrust and thus interfere with the attempts to resolve
the conflict, slow down the process of tackling moot issues.

Incidents and victims on the line where the warring sides stand face
to face serve to mount tension. The Armenians claim they are prepared
to observe the accord between Azerbaijan, Armenia, and
Nagorno-Karabakh dated February 6, 1995, a document aimed to resolve
incidents and lessen losses. Baku does not bother to honor the accord
and does not even pledge to try to. Neither does the OSCE seem to
care. This latter does not care about the only existing accord on
Karabakh, and the monitoring missions it mounts every now and then
cannot prevent new victims or complications. The arms race President
of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev openly cultivate could only be condemned.
The OSCE is silent on that subject too.

All of these are artificial barriers erected by the ruling elites
because even mutual concessions imply dangers to them. Avoiding
concessions, the elites are trying to retain their positions of power
at the cost of the two peoples. This ostentatious patriotism and
demonization of the enemy are all too frequently corollaries of the
domestic political situation.

Seeking to finally establish peace in Karabakh, the very idea of a
resolution by force must be abandoned for good. That should be a
priority in 2006. No progress is possible without it. Responsibility
for resolution the conflict accepted, the OSCE should become more
determined and never hesitate whenever something compromises its
peace mission. It should not dismiss the threats uttered by state
officials or the hosannah they sing to the arms race. It should not
feign not to notice bloodshed. Both peoples need a breakthrough that
will lead to peace. At least in 2009 or 2010!

Source: Vremya Novostei, May 4, 2006, p. 5